[discuss] What is MSism?
jefsey at jefsey.com
Thu Mar 27 10:31:51 UTC 2014
On 14:02 26/03/2014, Michel Gauthier said:
>I am quite interested in your clear explanation of what MSism and
>polycracy (might) mean. However, I feel you make a dichotomy between
>those two, or at least between diktyarchy and polycracy while one
>could imagine (it seems it is what we do all the day long) a
>complementarity between those two. On your French list you use the
>idea of the multitude having to invest the magnitude's mailing lists
>in order to keep themselves abreast, I would say, of the way they
>are going to be coocked. Is that not some forme of cooperation
>between the Cook and the cooked?
This is a very interesting, important, and complex question just as
all the problems we face herein are. I accept, however, that NO other
thing here is more pressing, relevant, or fruitful. In despite of
what some, more concerned by details, may wrongly assume. The
emphasis put on MSism by NTIA shows it is the key part of the debate:
if one wants to negotiate without knowing exactly what one is
negotiating about there are few chances that we will reach a win/win
situation, i.e. stability.
We have two propositions to a complex problem that is not so
surprisingly identified through the DNS (i.e. the human semantic
layer), but which is actually the governance of the digisphere (from
bits and digits to big data and quantum computers, including our own
human ecosystem in their increasingly important context). As for
everything, elements or quantities are of two kinds: multitude and
magnitude, or discrete quantity and continuous quantity. Our common
vision is continuity (height, width, depth). The digital
renormalization that we currently live with is the capacity
introduced by Jacquard to see the discontinuity in the continuity
(data with their three dimensions: data, metadata, and syllodata)
that we tie together by the continuity/discontinuity of time.
Relativity and quantum physics. Visible (photons) and unvisible (EPR).
- Multitude in everything or discrete quantity or individuality. It
is a natural plurality or multiplicity. This means that quantity
(digits, people, power, coins and bank notes, projects, decisions,
etc.) is divisible into really separate or non-continuous persons
(this is democracy), ideas (topics as says Fadi), or parts (this is
mechanics). And in this case: stake/share/status-holders.
- Magnitude or continuous quantity is divisible into continuous parts
(numers, concepts, principles, globality), that is, there is no
natural separation or division between them. Politically, this is
concerted cooperation. In our case, this is functions (ICANN, IANA).
The danger of multitude is fragmentation. The whole idea of
Montevideo is to oppose fragmentation. In turn, the danger of
magnitude is the augmentation of power due to an abuse of its
continuity: up to now through the numbers, numerus, i.e. money
(oligarchy), time (hereditary power), and now also by the network
There certainly is, as you point it out, a possible compromise (we
live as you say in, by, from it!). It is to blend them into reality:
putting continuity in discontinuity (e.g. projects, plans,
representation) and putting discontinuity in discontinuity (e.g.
renewing people, reviews, phased projects, elections). This is the
mathematical incompletude, the notion of infinite, etc. In the case
of MSism, the problem (apart from a possible lack of democracy) is
the impermeability of the multitude due to the right to continuously
hold some stakes. Two, in particular, seem to be a problem:
- the share-holder: He has purchased the right to hold. Corporations.
- the status-holder. He holds on a permanent basis.
These two cases tend to increase the size of the minimum stake to be
involved. Democracy means that everyone belongs to the elite. The
stake is simply to be a citizen. Everyone is equal. In MSism it is on
an equal footing. The footing may be very high. In democratic Athens,
you had to be a citizen while the multitude comprised mechanicians
and slaves (today's techies and consumers).
If you take care of the two dangers and weight them accordingly you
can reach a good balance. This *IS* the problem we have to work out.
With or without the ICANN, the NTIA and/or the IANA. Just a good rule
of thumb: diktyarchy is the networked bureaucracy, and polycracy is
the global democracy. MSism is a circumstantial balance among those
two, where groups of public (States), private (Corporate), and common
(others) interests aggregate in enhanced cooperation. We need that
enhanced cooperation. As usual, a good protection against unequal
treatment and unethical processes, while there is such large
differences between the involved stakeholders, from you and me to the
US and UN, is subsidiarity and autopoiesis, (
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoiesis), i.e. the way the autocatalytic
dynamic of life works.
The internet is a large and complex system (RFC 3439) that is a
covenant between people about the way their machines will work
together. This is why code is law. However, this also means that law
is code. And today we have two laws, proceeding from two cultures,
which are interestingly confronted. The law from magnitude by the
largest world economy and the Congress status quo, and since
yesterday, the law of multitude by the Brazilian Parliament and the
effort of the digital society. What is to be discovered is how to blend them.
In the WSIS, we, the people of the world, consensually expressed that
it was through a people centered society, in the respect of Human
Rights. If it is to be through MS enhanced cooperation, our problem
to be solved is how to make MSism and enhanced cooperation enter Human Rights.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss